Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

Eastern Construction Company Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)723

ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, on 5th March, 1991 for asst. yr. 1986-87.2. The appellant firm is carrying on business of civil contractors. The firm filed its return of income on 25th September, 1986, declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,10,000. The copies of final accounts such as P&L; a/c and balance sheet were not enclosed with the said return. The AO, thereforee, issued a notice on 8th December, 1986 calling upon the assessed to remove the defects pointed out in the said notice and to furnish copies of final accounts. The assessed furnished the second return on 1st January, 1987, showing taxable income at Rs. 1,12,320. The assessed also filed copy of balance sheet and P&L; a/c along with the said return. The assessed filed the third return on 2nd December, 1987, declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,80,230.The appellant-firm did not maintain regular books of accounts. The final accounts were ...

Sanden Vikas (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT696TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders; one passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras and the other passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. As in both the appeals, the classification of the goods imported, declared by the appellant as Aluminium extruded tubes and as classified by the Revenue as the part of air-conditioner, is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri K. Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and have perused the relevant tariff entries. The appellants had declared the goods imported under the relevant Bill of Entry as aluminium extruded tubes classified under the Heading No. 7608.10 of the Tariff. The Revenue had classified the same under Heading No.8415.90. The appellants had made alternative claim of classification under sub-heading No. 8419.9...

Xlo-gwb Cardan Shafts Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT564TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad has confirmed a demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,84,385.60 p. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants herein on the ground that the appellants received Centre Bearings and Reverse Sleeve Yokes which they fitted in Propeller Shafts and cleared Propeller Shaft Assembly without adding the value of these goods in the assessable value of Propeller Shaft Assembly. The extended period of limitation is held to be applicable as the appellants did not disclose to the department that they were not adding the value of Centre Bearings and Reverse Sleeve Yokes in the assessable value of the final product cleared.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and are represented by Shri A. Subramanian, Regional Manager who submits that the duty demand is not contested because even in the event of decision in their favour on merits since the appellants have passed on the burden of duty to their...

Best Liquifiable Gases Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT228TriDel

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of acetylene gas packed in metal cylinders containing required quantity of acetone filed price lists declaring the wholesale prices. The prices having been approved, the goods were being cleared on payment of appropriate duty. It was subsequently found that appellant was collecting by separate debit notes certain sums of money towards "acetoning charges" and had failed to pay duty on such charges during the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1982. The collection of such extra charges was not disclosed in the price lists and was not brought to the notice of the department.Accordingly, show cause notice dated 3-6-1983 was issued proposing demand of differential duty on the quantum of "acetoning charges".Appellant resisted the notice. However, the Additional Collector confirmed the demand....

Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Sareen and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)92; [1998]91CompCas686(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT866

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This suit has been filed alleging that the plaintiff-Bank is constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. 5 of 1970 having its head office at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Bombay, with one of its branches at Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Plaint has been signed and verified and die suit instituted by Krishan Kumar Chopra, who has been duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to file the suit. Defendant No. 2 is the proprietary concern of defendant No. 1. At the request of defendant No. 1, plaintiff-Bank agreed to grant him advance to the tune ofRs.53,000.00 byway of Demand Term Loan for purchase of a Maruti vehicle. In consideration of sanctioning of the loan defendant No. 1 on November 3,1986, executed demand promissory note, agreement of hypothecation in respect of vehicle No. DDA-302, letter of instalment, letter of continuing security, letter of undertaking, letter of lien and set-off, bearer letter and letter a...

C.H. Krishnan and Associates Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)502; 68(1997)DLT506

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,71,736.74. The facts as enumerated in paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of the plaint may be reproduced as follows : '2.Under a tripartite agreement entered into by and between the plaintiff, the President of India (Government of India), through the Planning Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'The Planning Commission') and the Inter-data Inc. (a company incorporated under the laws of United States of America; hereinafter called 'the manufacturer'), the plaintiff was obliged to supply, install, service and upkeep a computer equipment manufactured by the manufacturer as per the terms thereof. 3.As per the terms of the said agreement, the title to the equipment was to pass on to the Planning Commission upon air-freighting of the equipment at the U.S. International Airport and the price for the Computer equipment was U.S. $410,130.00 being F.O.B. International U.S. Airport value payable by confirmed and ...

Rashtariya Printing Press Vs. Gian Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)388; 71(1998)DLT137; 1997(43)DRJ47; (1998)118PLR18

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a second appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) against the judgment and order dated October 17, 1978 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated January 14, 1972 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of convenience) for recovery of possession over the properties bearing municipal Nos. VII/3020/64/5532-24 and 5556-63, plot No. 78, G.B.Road, Delhi, and decreed the suit for recovery of possession over the above said properties (hereinafter referred to as the disputed properties for the sake of brevity). (2) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein Shri Gian Chand (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit bearing No. 59/72 for recovery of possession over the disputed properties alluded to above...

Mohamad Afzal Mohd. Yar Khan Vs. A.K. Srivastava Joint Secretary, Gove ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 71(1998)DLT769; 1998(44)DRJ169

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated April 9, 1996 issued against him. The allegations against the petitioner are that on search of his premises 60 grams of opium, 6 grams of methqualone powder, a diary and certain other incriminating documents along with a sum of Rs.15,000.00 were recovered. (2) On April 9, 1996, Joint Secretary to the Government of India passed an order of detention against the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from engaging in the manufacture of methaqualone powder and also preventing him from engaging in purchase, transportation, storage and sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Pursuant to the order of detention, the petitioner was detained on April 15, 1996 in Arthur Road, Thane, Mumbai. On April 30, 1996 a...

Sipani Automobiles Ltd. and Another Vs. Tej Bahadur JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. It will be convenient to dispose of the above mentioned appeals and revision as they raise common questions and arise out a substantially identical facts. 2. The facts giving rise to Appeal A-57/97 are that Tej Bahadur jain, complainant for short, booked Montana car on 10.6.1989. The car was to be manufactured by M/s. Sipani Authomobiles Ltd. and the booking was made through M/s. Preet Motors at New Delhi. The complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/-. Booking was cancelled and the manufacturer was requested to refund the amount together with interest. They failed to do so and therefore, the complaint. The plea of the opposite party was that the complaint is barred by limitation, that the complainant is not a 'consumer' and that the Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. The District Forum rejected these pleas mainly on the ground that similar pleas had been raised in a bunch of 21 complaints. The same were negatived and the complaints allowed. The State Commissio...

Sewa Ram Garella Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Sewa Ram Garella, complainant for short, is a subscriber of telephone at his residence without STD facility. He filed a complaint in District Forum-II for two inflated bills: (i) Dated 1.9.92 for the period of 16.6.92 to 15.8.92 for Rs. 1,970/- including Rs. 330/- on account of rental. (ii) 1.11.92 for the period of 16.8.92 to 15.10.92 for Rs. 2.027/-. 2. His case was that before and after the said disputed bills his bill never exceeded Rs. 400/-. The aforesaid disputed bills were either on account of defecting meter or diversion of the line by some unscrupulous person in connivance with the field staff of the opp. party. 3. The plea of the opp. party, before the District Forum was that the metering equipment was not faulty and the bills had been raised on the basis of the meter recording. The District Forum accepted the plea. The District Forum also sought support from the fact that after reading increased number of calls, the number came down and beca...